Topic: Trade and Immigration

Joe Biden’s So-So Record on Trade

During his long tenure in the Senate, Joe Biden of Delaware has compiled a mixed record on votes affecting our freedom to participate in the global economy. The record of the Democratic vice-presidential hopeful is more pro-trade than Barack Obama’s but much less so than John McCain’s.

According to our “Trade Vote Records” feature on the Cato trade center web site, Biden has voted in favor of lower trade barriers on 24 out of 48 votes in the past 15 years. On trade-distorting subsidies, such as farm price supports, he has voted for lower subsidies on only 3 of 11 votes. Since Obama joined the Senate in 2005, he has voted for lower barriers 36 percent of the time and for lower subsidies 0 percent. John McCain has voted for lower barriers on 88 percent of votes and for lower subsidies on 80 percent.

Here are the highlights and lowlights of Biden’s voting record on trade:

On the positive side from a free trade perspective, he voted consistently to maintain normal trade relations with China, including permanent NTR in 2000; for the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico in 1993; for the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1994; for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996; for fast-track trade promotion authority in 1998; to defund enforcement of the travel ban to Cuba; to cut sugar production subsidies; and in favor of the Morocco and Australian free trade agreements in 2004.

On the negative side for those who support the freedom to trade, Biden voted for steel import quotas in 1999; for the 2002 and 2008 protective and subsidy laden farm bills; against trade promotion authority in 2002; against the Chile, Singapore, Oman, and Dominican Republic-Central American FTAs; in favor of the Byrd amendment directing anti-dumping booty to complaining companies; in favor of imposing steep tariffs on imports from China to force changes in that country’s currency regime; and in favor of screening of 100 percent income shipping containers by 2012.

For a senator who prides himself on his foreign policy experience, Biden’s record shows great ambivalence about American participation in the global economy.

Our Convoluted, Less-than-open Immigration System

If you think the United States has an “open border” policy toward immigrants, check out this immigration flowchart put together by our friends over at the Reason Foundation.

In one graphic sweep, it explains better than mere words why we need comprehensive immigration reform.

Of course, if you are one of those people who like to read the articles and not just look at the pictures, you can check out Cato research on immigration at the Center for Trade Policy Studies web site.

The Democrats and Free Trade

If and when trade and globalization come up at the Democratic National Convention next week, I can almost guarantee that the take will be negative. It has become part of the party’s core message these days that free trade favors the rich at home and our unfair trading partners abroad. Just yesterday, in a tour of southern Virginia, Democratic hope Barak Obama took an indirect swipe at trade when he told a crowd in Martinsville, “You’re worried about the future. Here people have gone through very tough times. When you’ve got entire industries that have shipped overseas, when you’ve got thousands of jobs being lost… . That’s tough.”

Not all Democrats share the pessimistic view of trade. In the latest edition of the Cato Journal, hot off the presses, I review a new book by pro-trade Democrat Ed Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute. In my review of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy, I wrote:

Although it is easy to forget today as Democratic candidates rail against NAFTA and globalization, but for decades it was the Democratic Party that championed lower tariffs. Democrats opposed the high tariff wall maintained by Republicans from the Civil War to World War One, arguing that tariffs benefited big business at the expense of poor consumers. Under President Woodrow Wilson, Congress drastically lowered tariffs in 1913 and replaced the revenue with an income tax, only to see Republicans raise tariffs again in the 1920s, culminating in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 and the Great Depression that followed.

The Democrats should think long and hard before they give up that legacy altogether.

You can read the full review here.

A Modest Proposal to Protect Newspaper Jobs

Gannett announced this week that it will eliminate more than 1,000 positions among its 85 daily newspapers and 900 non-dailies. The reason for the layoffs has become all too familiar — declining readership and advertising sales, primarily because of lower-cost competition from the Internet.

I’m waiting for a member of Congress to issue the following news release:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15—Rep. John Smith today announced his opposition to the loss of jobs at Gannett and other newspaper companies and demanded that Congress and the president rethink their commitment to “so-called free domestic trade.”

“The loss of thousands of decent, good-paying middle-class union jobs will be devastating to my district and to communities across America,” Rep. Smith announced. “Our misguided domestic trade policies have exposed vital industries to unfair competition. Our newspapers, record shops, and book stores must not be forced to compete against dumped services sold at predatory prices.”

Rep. Smith blamed growing use of the Internet since 1994 for stagnant real wages, a shrinking middle class, falling home prices, and rising levels of crime, alcoholism, and divorce in America’s newsrooms.

Rep. Smith rejected what he called “academic theories about competition, comparative advantage, technological progress, and productivity gains.” He also denounced supposed evidence that the Internet has brought benefits to millions of workers and consumers as “mere statistics.”

As Rep. Smith told cheering constituents at a recent debate, “Look, people don’t want cheaper news and information if they’re losing a job in the process. They would rather have the job and pay a little bit more for their news. And I think that’s something that all Americans could agree to.”

Rep. Smith demanded that the president and Congress embrace an immediate “time out” on all new technologies and web sites until domestic trade policies “can be made to work for all Americans.” He demanded more vigorous enforcement of domestic antidumping rules and an additional $1 billion in the FY2008 budget to expand Technology Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs.

The Answer to High Oil Prices and Global Warming? More Global Poverty, Less Immigration

Opponents of immigration are now trying to hitch their wagon to worries about high oil prices and global warming.

An ad on page A12 of today’s Washington Post asks, “If foreign oil has us over a barrel now, what happens when our population increases by another 100 million?” The text of the ad tries to provide the answer: “With America’s population at a record 300 million today, [oil] supplies are again tight in spite of record high prices. And the U.S. Census Bureau projects that another 110 million people will be added to our population between 2000 and 2040.” So, if we want lower oil prices, we need to reduce America’s population growth and that means reducing immigration. Get it?

The ad is sponsored by five anti-immigration, anti-population-growth groups, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Californians for Population Stabilization.

The ad provides no evidence that rising global demand for oil has been driven primarily or even significantly by population growth in the United States. In fact, our total oil consumption has actually declined compared to last year, while demand continues to rise in developing countries. The two previous big spikes in global oil prices, in 1973 and 1979, occurred when the U.S. population was 80 to 90 million LOWER than it is today.

The future direction of oil prices will be determined by such factors as energy efficiency, economic growth in emerging economies, oil production, and development of alternative energy sources. Immigration rates to the United States won’t matter.

As though on cue, the Center for Immigration Studies released a report this morning with the headline, “Immigration to U.S. Increases Global Greenhouse-Gas Emissions.” The report argues that immigration “significantly increases world-wide CO2 emissions because it transfers population from lower-polluting parts of the world to the United States, which is a higher-polluting country.”

What the CIS study is really arguing is that rich people pollute more than poor people, so the world would be better off if more people remained poor. The same argument could be used to oppose economic development in places such as China and India that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the past two decades.

Through the dark lens of CIS, the world is a better place when poor people remain stuck in poor countries, and poor countries remain poor.

Sound Advice from Bill Clinton’s Trade Rep

At a Senate Finance Committee hearing last week, a top trade official from the Clinton administration voiced her dissent from the trade-skeptic orthodoxy that now seems to dominate the Democratic Party.

Charlene Barshefsky was one of several former U.S. Trade Representatives who testified at the July 29 hearing. She served as Bill Clinton’s USTR from 1997 to 2001. In contrast to presidential hopeful Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress, she told the panel that Congress should pass pending free trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.

According to BNA’s weekly International Trade Reporter newsletter [sorry, subscription required], she told the panel that blocking the U.S.-Colombia agreement would do nothing to improve labor rights in Colombia. In fact, refusing to enact the agreement would be the “dream” of Colombia’s anti-American neighbor Hugo Chavez, the heavy-handed president of Venezuela. Those are among the main points my Cato colleague Juan Carlo Hidalgo and I made in our Free Trade Bulletin on the agreement earlier this year.

Former USTR Barshefsky pronounced the U.S. tariff code as outdated in our era of globalization. We continue to apply high tariffs to such light-manufacturing products as clothing, shoes and household linens at the expense of low-income families. “They protect few if any jobs, but do noticeable damage to hopes of poverty reduction in the United States,” Barshefsky reminded the senators.

Her fellow Democrat Earl Blumenauer, the congressman from Oregon, made the same point a few days earlier at a Cato policy forum on why Congress should unilaterally lower tariffs on shoe imports. You can watch a video of the forum here.

Trade-Blog-Posts-At-Dawn

I’ve written before on the presidential candidates’ positions on trade (and spoke at a forum here on their economic positions more broadly) but the Wall Street Journal has gotten one degree closer to the candidates by getting their advisers to engage in back-and-forth discussions on trade.

The latest entry was a discussion on farm subsidies. John McCain has been a staunch opponent of farm subsidies, never voting for any during his time in Congress. Barack Obama, however, seemed to out aside his general theme of change to support the 2008 Farm Bill, a shameful example of Lobbying 101 and outmoded pork. What caught my eye, though, was this quote from Daniel Tarullo, economic adviser to Senator Obama, when he was asked about a possible change in negotiating strategy on farm subsidies should the failed Doha round ever be revived:

…as a matter of negotiating strategy to advance American interests, it would be self-defeating to indicate to the rest of the world what positions an Obama Administration might or might not take should serious negotiations eventually resume.

Why the secrecy? Does Tarullo not know the answer to the question? Does Obama?